Michelle Malkin: Public has right to see Parkland exterior surveillance video

Scot Peterson resigned as a Broward County deputy on February 22, 2018, after county Sheriff Scott Israel suspended him for inaction during the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Open government isn't just good government — it's the public's right. In Florida, the Broward County sheriff's office and school district are fighting to keep exterior surveillance video from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting hidden from view. Sheriff Scott Israel and school Superintendent Robert Runcie, defendants in an open-records lawsuit filed by the South Florida Sun Sentinel, the Miami Herald and CNN, claim the exterior videos are completely exempt from sunshine laws because they would expose the district's security system plan, are part of an active criminal investigation, and involve an active internal-affairs investigation of Scot Peterson, former school resource officer/deputy.

Let's break down these specious excuses for keeping information vital to the public interest locked in a black box.

First, disclosure of the videos would pose no danger to students because Building 12, where the shooting took place, will be demolished.

Second, key investigative records, transcripts and logs in the active criminal probe against the Parkland school shooter have already been released to the public. Moreover, the lawsuit notes Israel has already publicly described what the video shows: Peterson took a position with a view of Building 12's western entrance and got on his radio, but never went in for “upwards of four minutes” while 17 innocent students and teachers were slaughtered. Government sources have leaked FBI transcripts of caller tips, reporting Nikolas Cruz's violent threats and tendencies, that went unheeded. Unidentified sources leaked school disciplinary records documenting the alleged shooter's troubles. And Broward Circuit Court Judge Charles Greene already ordered the release of a Florida Department of Children and Families investigation into allegations of abuse and neglect in the shooter's home.

“If there were shortcomings,” the judge concluded, “the public has the right to know.” Any right to privacy that the shooter may have claimed was effectively waived by his own bloody actions and outweighed by the public interest. The school district is claiming that since law enforcement took possession of the videos, its hands are tied. But school property is public property, subject to the state's public records act.

Third, Peterson has resigned, so the sheriff's office should not be able to hide behind the confidential personnel records shield. Peterson publicly disputes Israel's version of events and released his own detailed account of his actions.

Israel's “just trust us” arrogance is an obstacle to the truth. He's a dime a dozen. Across the country, government control freaks in local, state and federal agencies — both civilian and law enforcement — routinely block public disclosure of information that destroys their carefully spun, job-preserving narratives.

Release the videos. Let the public, especially competent security experts, see them. Without transparency, there can be no accountability — and “Never Again” is yet another empty, expedient cable-TV sound bite in an ocean of self-serving rhetoric.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.